Mumbai Court February 2009 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Bapurao Trimbakrao Sonawane Vs. the State of Maharashtra and
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2009
Reported in: 2009(111)BomLR1271
S.S. Shinde, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. This application is filed for anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 216/2008 registered with Chalisgaon Police Station for the offences punishable under s 406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B, 201, r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code.3. The said crime is registered on 19.10.2008 at Chalisgaon Police Station. This application is filed before this Court on 22nd November, 2008. The application filed for anticipatory bail of the present applicant on 23.10.2008 before the Sessions Court came to be rejected on 15.11.2008. Hence, this application.4. The facts as narrated in the application are as follows.The applicant is Ex-Director of Chalisgaon Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd. He had performed his duties as permissible in law and had not recommended proposals of any relatives. It is further case of the applicant that he has not taken disadvantage of his position and there are no any outstanding dues to wards the applicant. The applicant was ele...
Dadar Avanti Chs Ltd. and anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR817; 2009(111)BomLR1313
D.K. Deshmukh, J.1. By this appeal, the appellants challenge the order dated 30th January 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petition No. 779 of 1997. That writ petition was filed by the present appellants challenging the order dated 7th June 1996 passed by the Commissioner of Bombay Municipal Corporation granting special permission to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to use flat Nos. 3 and 4 of second floor of the building known as Avanti Apartment, situated at Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar, Mumbai 400 028, which is owned by the Society, for running a surgical clinic. The relevant facts that are material and relevant for deciding this appeal are that the building where these flats are situated was constructed by the builders by name M/s Amar Builders pursuant to building plans sanctioned by the Corporation. It consists of ground plus 13 floors. According to the sanctioned building plans, ground floor premises could be used for clinic and garages while upper floors could...
Dalai Brothers Freight Forwarders Private Limited Vs. Transport and Do ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR445
Vazifdar S.J., J.1. The writ petition is allowed to be amended in terms of the draft tendered in Court and marked 'X'. The amendments to be carried out within two weeks from today.2. Even assuming that I have the jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition, I am not inclined to exercise any discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.3(A). Admittedly, Writ Petition No. 2070 of 2007 identical to this writ petition was filed by the same petitioner in this Court.(B). By an order dated 1.10.2007, the learned Judge directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of back wages as per the order impugned in the writ petition, failing which the petition was directed to stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the Court. By an order dated 29.10.2007, the time to deposit the said amount was extended upto 19.11.2007.(C). The petitioner challenged the said orders by filing Appeal No. 8 of 2008 (The appeal was lodged on 14.11.2007 but numbered only later). There was no ...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Akhtar Jahangir Begum and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-2009
Reported in: 2009ACJ2822
K.U. Chandiwal, J.1. The insurance company (the appellant) has challenged the award of compensation passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad in M.A.C.P. No. 60 of 1990, on the ground that the accident has taken place on 22.12.1989 at 11.30 a.m. and there was no policy or cover note issued by the appellant insurance company and secondly, respondent No. 2 (owner) has later obtained the cover note from the appellant on 22.12.1989 at about 4.30 p.m.2. The driver did not appear. Based on the available evidence, compensation of Rs. 1,26,000 was awarded with interest by learned Member.3. The insurance company examined Rauf to show that he works on behalf of the insurance company for collecting the insurance premium and on 22.12.1989, Abdul Aziz came to him at 4.30 p.m. at R.T.O. and obtained cover note from him. Copy of the cover note is at Exh. 66, as the Development Officer, R.S. Baheti used to handover blank cover notes to him. He had handed over the amount of cove...
Lt. Col. Anil Bhat, Vs. Citibank, N.A. (a National Banking Association ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-2009
Reported in: AIR2009Bom99; 2009(3)BomCR808; 2009(4)BomLR1490
F.I. Rebello, J.1. Rule. Heard forthwith.2. The petitioners have approached this Court against the order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal which after accepting the contention of the petitioners herein that the proceedings filed before it by the respondent were without jurisdictions directed the return of the plaint (Application) for presentation to the proper Court. The petitioners are aggrieved by this part of the order. It is the submission on behalf of the petitioners that the Tribunal under the Act being a creature of Statute, consequently would have no jurisdiction to direct return of the Original Application to the Respondent for presentation to the proper Court. The application filed under Section 19 of the Act is neither a plaint nor a suit as contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure and as the Recovery of Debts Due to Bank & Financial Institution Act, 1993, hereinafter referred to as RDB Act, does not have a provision for return of plaint, it was not open to the T...
Shivram S/O Kondaji Sathe, Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(3)BomCR279
K.K. Tated, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.2. Present Petition is filed by the Petitioners under Article 14, 19, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking declaration that the reservation of Petitioners' land is lapsed for not acquiring inspite of purchase notice issued by them under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. It is the case of the Petitioners that they are owners of land situated at Shirasgaon, Tq-Shrirampur, Dist-Ahmednagar bearing Gut No. 92 admeasuring 5 Hectors. The said land is within Shrirampur Municipal Council, Shrirampur - Respondent No. 5. It is the case of the Petitioners that Respondent No. 5 prepared development plan for the development of the area of Municipal Council limits in which the Petitioners' land is situated. The development plan of Shrirampur was finally sanctioned by the Director of Town ...
Mankawati Shikshan Sanstha Through Secretary, Mahipatrao Ganpatrao Kot ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR469
K.K. Tated, J>.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.2. The petitioner filed the present petition under Article 226 and 14 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Secretary, State of Maharashtra dated 23-08-2004 by which respondent State of Maharashtra allowed respondent No. 4 to start primary school for 1stStandard for the academic year 2004-2005. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a Public Trust registered under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and running Secondary School at village Chinchwan, Tq. Wadwani, District Beed. Initially the permission was granted to the petitioner to start Class Vth on 13-12-1962 and in course of time the recognition of the school was continued and it was granted permission to run Class from VIth to IXth Standard by order dated 12-03-1966. The petitioner further submitted that by order dated 22-06-2004...
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Geoffrey Manners and Co. Ltd. (Now ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR427; [2009]315ITR134(Bom); [2009]180TAXMAN87(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. These Appeals are in respect of assessment years 2001-2002 and 1996-97. The common question of law which would arise in both these Appeals reads as under:Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer for the expenses incurred by the assessee for promotion films, slides, advertisement films and treating the same as capital expenditure? The principal contention based on which the Revenue has preferred this appeal is that the Tribunal while passing the judgment ignored the ratio of the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Patel International Films Ltd. : [1976]102ITR219(Bom) .2. The Respondent assessee has incurred expenditure on film production by way of advertisement for the marketing of products manufactured by them. It was their submission that these expenses are purely of revenue nature and they derive no enduring benefit to the company. They...
Director of Income Tax (international) Taxation Vs. Oman International ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR416; (2009)223CTR(Bom)382; [2009]313ITR128(Bom); [2009]184TAXMAN314(Bom)
F.I. Rebello, J.1. The appellant had raised several questions as amounting to substantial questions of law. In our opinion, the question of law can be reframed in terms of the order of the Tribunal. Appeal is, therefore, admitted on the following question and by consent of parties heard forthwith:Whether as per the existing provisions even after the amendment with effect from 1-4-1989, is it obligatory on the part of the assessee to prove that the debt written off by him is indeed a Bad Debt for the purpose of allowance under Section 36(1)(vii)?2. The assessee had claimed writing off of Bad Debts in the sum of Rs. 4,59,60,393/-. The bad debts written off were in respect of Mysore Timber Mart Rs. 81,44,000/- and Overseas Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 11,52,000/-. In Appeal before the C.I.T. (A) it was the contention of the assessee that the write off was done after creating provisions in accordance with the guidelines of the R.B.I. and was a bonafide write off and as such deduction should be...
Vasanta Vithoba Dudhe and anr. Vs. Maroti Vithoba Dudhe and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-2009
Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR808
Bhatia J.H., J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing immediately.2. Respondent No. 1 filed Regular Civil Suit No. 56/2001 claiming possession over certain property on the basis of a Will executed by his mother. The present petitioners are original defendant Nos. 1 and 3. Petitioner No. 1 is brother of respondent No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 is son of petitioner No. 1. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are original defendant Nos. 2 and 4 to 6. They are also related to them. However, they were supporting the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, an affidavit of Bandu Haribhau Tajne, who was stated to be an attesting witness of the Will was filed in examination-in-chief. He was put to cross-examination on behalf of the present petitioners. As in examination-in-chief before the Court he had not verified the contents of the affidavit filed in examination-in-chief, the said Will...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »